I recently became a theist after reading Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem. The book fully lays bare just how normal, healthy secular moral reasoning was absolutely destroyed when faced with genuine, uncompromising evil. I just reject that kind of world.

Metaphysics. Over a decade ago, influenced mostly by various thread discussions with @Tobias, I'd reconsidered and thereby gradually translated my vacuous, scientistic, interpretation of 'positive metaphysics' (as useless as tits on a bull) into an intensively critical, 'negative metaphysics' (apophasis), which, among other things, has 'solved' the great jigsaw puzzle of my many disparate philosophical concerns.

Thanks for the responses. Very interesting.

I'm pretty much constantly making minor refinements, elaborations, etc. The most recent of those worth mentioning was the realization, some time in the past month or two, that the spectrum of philosophical positions within which I framed my own position was not one dimensional but two dimensional; and that the poles of that second dimension constitute, on the one hand, postmodernism, which merges the worst of both of the poles of the first dimension, and on the other hand, what postmodernists call "modernism", which is not my own position but an unstable opposite extreme that cannot help but collapse into postmodernism.

The last actual reversal of anything in my view came some time just over a decade ago. At that time my views had gradually been shifting more and more skeptical for a long while, and I was basically at a point where I thought there was no real good reason not to be a complete nihilist. I refused to actually go there because I just didn't want to, but I couldn't see any good reason not to, no way of arguing to anyone why they should accept the views I still "baselessly" clung to, if they didn't just feel like it like I did. Then I found a pragmatic reason not to give in to nihilism, and that reframed all of the views I had transitioned through, from the naive religious faith I had been raised in through the nigh-nihilism I was teetering on the edge of, as the first dimension of the aforementioned philosophical spectrum, with my own general position (the one I was "baselessly" clinging to at that time, and that I've been refining and elaborating on ever since) around the middle of that spectrum.

Seriously?

:100:

It would be interesting to hear an explanation, of any sort, if you feel like it at all. I can't begin to wrap my head around how this works out.

During the Holocaust, various Jewish community leaders were essentially placed in charge of large, mostly Jewish communities known as ghettos under Nazi control. However, due to lack of manpower most of the municipal services including policing was placed under the control of these Jewish councils. Different Jewish leaders employed different survival strategies, but ultimately the most tragic fates befell those who practiced what I would call reasonable, secular moral reasoning when it came to dealing with a much more powerful enemy.

Judaism, like Christianity, says that there are absolute lines that we must not cross, like delivering one's own community to certain death even if it is to avoid a greater evil (e.g. if the Nazis promise that they'll come in and do worse), but during these times the logic was more along the lines of "cut off the leg to save the body." Leaders put the noose around their own populations in the name of avoiding greater evil and in doing so sacrificed something unbelievably deep as I understand it.

That makes even less sense to me as I thought you were focusing on Eichmann who didn't appear to be religious or a theist, the banality of evil and all that jazz.

The Jewish leaders in Nazi ghettos were theists, were they not?

The Jewish leaders in Nazi ghettos were theists, were they not? — praxis

Some were, some weren't. I don't know the exact breakdown. Everyone can get scared and collaborate to save their own necks. I'm not really talking about individuals here; I'm more talking about the type of moral reasoning used.

Plenty of Jews are atheists and they're still considered Jews because Judaism isn't primarily a religious faith. It's really not a faith at all.

... Judaism isn't primarily a religious faith. It's really not a faith at all. — BitconnectCarlos

Making even less sense... I give up.

I took Plato's Forms to be real. I now see them as part of Plato's philosophical poetry suitable for those who need answers. I now think he is far more interesting.

It's just different from Christianity or Islam. It's not that hard to grasp. You're Jewish if your mother is Jewish and it doesn't really matter what you believe. Sure there's Jewish religious thought but we're not going to excommunicate you if you don't engage in it or believe it.

I don’t want to make this thread all about debating your choice, but I feel the need to note that you can change ethical principles out of strategic considerations without having to change your metaphysical beliefs. A secular moral code could just as easily say “don’t give them one single inch” (or however you would phrase the maxim against the behavior you see as detrimental) without having to believe in God. There’s far from only one secular morality, or even one religious morality for that matter.

Mmm. That solidity is something found in objects. I suppose it was the one irreducible aspect of realism that kept me a bit sane.

I then read Thomas Reid's excellent An Enquiry Into the Human Mind and as he points out, trivially, but powerfully - as a lot of philosophy is, at bottom - that solidity is an effect the objects produce in us. They're not a necessary component of them.

Damn.

I don’t want to make this thread all about debating your choice — Pfhorrest

Not a problem, let's keep it friendly.

but I feel the need to note that you can change ethical principles out of strategic considerations without having to change your metaphysical beliefs. A secular moral code could just as easily say “don’t give them one single inch” (or however you would phrase the maxim against the behavior you see as detrimental) without having to believe in God. — Pfhorrest

I don't even care whether these men were theists or atheists. All I'm talking about here is the type of reasoning used. This is not an "atheists are bad" post and there were plenty of atheists who acted honorably.

I'm sure strategic considerations and fear played a huge role, but ultimately, as I see things, there are lines that one cannot cross such as ordering one's community to round up members of that community and send them to certain death. I also understand that there are other types of secular ethical systems but "don't give them an inch" is just not feasible in this type of situation -- I'm talking here about reasonable secular systems that can be applied. "Cutting off the arm to save the body" makes intuitive sense and draws back on the common intuition that what ultimately matters is lives saved and preserving life, it's quite humanist.

Interesting. Thank you.

Holocaust scholar Michael Berenbaum writes: "In the final analysis, the Judenräte had no influence on the frightful outcome of the Holocaust; the Nazi extermination machine was alone responsible for the tragedy, and the Jews in the occupied territories, most especially Poland, were far too powerless to prevent it."

Assuming that was the case, and assuming I'm following your claims correctly, how was the Judenrätes' moral reasoning absolutely destroyed? And whatever the case, it's not clear how this may be conducive to theism.

Assuming that was the case — praxis

I'm not granting your assumption here because it would sidetrack the entire discussion. We are going by Arendt's version where the Judenrat did carry moral agency and did make meaningful policy decisions, as it was in actual history.

Whatever. Still not clear how their moral reasoning was absolutely destroyed, and how learning of these events may lead one to theism. I understand that the Judenrat were all but literally destroyed, if not completely destroyed, or did they sacrifice others to save themselves?

Still not clear how their moral reasoning was absolutely destroyed — praxis

Because their commitment to saving lives at all costs ("cutting off the leg to save the body") led them to collaborate and actively assist in the deportation (death) of one part of the community to save the other parts.

Does this make sense to you?

Because their commitment to saving lives at all costs ("cutting off the leg to save the body") led them to collaborate and actively assist in the deportation (death) of one part of the community to save the other parts.

Does this make sense to you? — BitconnectCarlos

And if they did not collaborate and actively assist their moral reasoning would have remained intact?

One is not allowed to rip a child from its mother's arms and send that child to certain death because one is afraid of what the enemy would have done otherwise or to make the process more humane (as it is you doing it and not the brutal enemy.)

This is all I'm trying to say.

This is all I'm trying to say. — BitconnectCarlos

You're speaking in riddles. I started by asking if you were serious. Jokes on me I guess.

I fell into nominalism a number of years ago. Having banished the specters from my mental furniture, life seems much clearer these days.

A secular moral code could just as easily say “don’t give them one single inch” (or however you would phrase the maxim against the behavior you see as detrimental) without having to believe in God. — Pfhorrest

Under this strategy, they would just kill you and replace you with someone else. That's a big part of the logic of totalitarianism - your "noble death" is made out to be meaningless.

Imagine this situation: There's a form on your desk requiring your signature that is needed to ship off 10,000 of your own people to certain death. They want your signature on it because everything needs to be done by the books.

If you refuse the 10,000 still get shipped off regardless, but in this case you get hanged and now someone else is in your position.

This was a real situation, by the way although I'm not sure about the exact number. The man responsible for signing the document, an atheist, committed suicide which I would consider honorable.

As long as you survive you are complicit, but there needs to be some point at which you make your stand otherwise you are totally lost.

Under this strategy, they would just kill you and replace you with someone else. That's a big part of the logic of totalitarianism - your "noble death" is made out to be meaningless. — BitconnectCarlos

So how does being a theist help in that situation? They'd do that if you refused for religious reasons too, right?

I totally get the awfulness of totalitarianism and the ethical difficulties in dealing with it, I just don't see how believing in God makes any difference to them.

So how does being a theist help in that situation? They'd do that if you refused for religious reasons too, right?

I totally get the awfulness of totalitarianism and the ethical difficulties in dealing with it, I just don't see how believing in God makes any difference to them. — Pfhorrest

In a practical, material sense being a theist changes nothing. As it seems to you and me it doesn't really matter whether the aforementioned man signs the document or not -- but to him it might (it should) and if we were him it might matter too (I would think it would.)

Personally, it matters to me whether my own hand -- as a leader responsible for that community -- signs my community's death warrant regardless of what happens afterward.

Question could lead to an interesting thread...

Rather than discuss which 'philosophical position' we've changed our minds and/or belief about, it's far more fruitful to discuss which particular beliefs, and it's even more interesting to discuss changes in deeply held beliefs, you know, those accompanied by nearly unshakable convictions along with those which formed a basis for a large plurality of subsequently formed and/or held beliefs.

Is that too much to ask for?